Wednesday, February 20, 2008

My country, 'tis of thee. . .

By Capt. Fogg

It's starting. Barak Obama is now the Democratic candidate apparent and the Swift Boats are weighing anchor, the slime breweries are bubbling and the Republican Values Vermin are sitting around the cauldron and giggling.

"Barack’s first presidential photo will show Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton on his right side and Teddie Kennedy and Oprah standing on his left side." says one.

"the head of the National Black Caucus said on NPR, National Public Radio, that if his boy got in he would make sure that Jessie was made Secretary of something. " says another. The viral video: Barak the Magic Negro has crawled out of its coffin again.

It's not as though I didn't expect it and it's not as though every country doesn't have it's unworthies. It's that we don't drag them out into the public square and pillory them any more that makes me so ashamed.

Well, then let's at least keep the discussion on each candidate's merits. The truth is that Barack Obama is not qualified to be President.The right-wing slime merchants will have a field day and John McCain will win in a landslide.It amazes me that in the election that practically any democrat would be elected that this is the best they could come up with.Those of us who have worked in politics for years know what the score is and I just wonder what flavor kool-aid the democratic voters so eagerly drank.

It seems that there are many that can't handle the truth.We've had eight years of incompetence so total that the only people the republicans got the better of was the democrats.Pelosi and Reid have made Bush look like Machiavelli in comparison.Obama? Pretty speechifying is not what this country needs.

That he's not qualified remains in the realm of opinion and all opinions tend to be self-serving. I'm not sure anyone running is really qualified in the first place and our process doesn't select for it nor does the public back anyone whose empty words don't make them feel good about themselves.

Truman wasn't qualified and we've had worse presidents. Of Course Reagan was all about inspirational low-brow speeches too.

It takes a talent I lack to be able to criticize Pelosi, who is not running and use it as a reason to say Obama isn't suitable. Maybe we can throw in Mark Foley and Larry Craig as long as we're making straw men and as the Republicans aggressively backed a moron and a crook with a Napoleon complex and aggressively attacked the patriotism of anyone criticizing him, I don't think the GOP is qualified even to submit a candidate for our consideration much less to question the qualifications of an opposing candidate.

I'd rather take piloting lessons from the guy who ran the Exxon Valdez on the rocks than back a Bush backer and someone backed by Bush and the party that has harmed this country so much.

I can handle truth, and I can handle opinions; but not truth masquerading as an opinion? From whom did you learn this hackneyed expression: “The truth is … “ From some overbearing parent who beat you into a muttonhead at a young and tender age?

I have known for some time now that this site encourages and engages in low brow attacks and name calling, something I don't do.This seems to be endemic among leftist blogs. There are bloggers here who go in for using large words and a pseudo-intellectual argument that is all words and no meaning. Being good leftists, you'll take great pleasure in the inevitable democrat defeat this November.You play defense much better than you play offense, winners don't whine and whining is what you do best.And Fogg I hate to say it, but the republicans have been in the majority for a long time and will be again as soon as Bush is gone. The people don't want democrats, they just want Bush gone.The democrats do not have a clue where they would take this country. They are just opposed to Bush.Further if you can't see that this is not just about Obama, but the democrats in general, then you're just parsing words.This place makes my head hurt.And Ecophotos, is that all you bring to the discussion? Why, you're not even a pseudo-intellectual.

This all sounds suspiciously ad hominem Jim and you haven't really been talking about the merits of the candidates other than to make proclamations - and get angry when challenged. Would you like a list of McCain's misrepresentations and logical solecisms to compare with Obama's lack of experience? I prefer inexperienced intelligence to mendacious but experienced mediocrity and I'm sorry if English annoys you, but I have a hard time with Newspeak.

I don't think it's just about Bush - I think it's about the fraudulent economic policies and misguided deregulation; about the obsessive secrecy and preoccupation with surveillance that has been the foundation of the GOP since Reagan and perhaps since Nixon. I think it's about a party that has set itself above the electorate and their will for far to long.

I don't think There are nearly as many Republicans as Democrats either. They've just been good at persuading blue collar workers that their future lies in the government aided ascendancy of the very wealthy.

Anyway, I simply don't understand your opinion and I simply don't understand your perception here which is so at odds with your other perceptions and if you take that as a personal attack - I don't understand that either; I haven't said a damn thing about you.

You're on record though with your prediction and I hope we can discuss it after the election without any more childish and risible "Pseudo intellectual" Spiroisms. It's only code for someone whose arguments you can't or won't understand. Perhaps a "real" intellectual is someone who agrees with you in short, declarative sentences?

And by the way - if by Kool-Aid you mean the Jim Jones cocktail, that was Flavor-Aid.

Jim, I won't try to use big elegant, sophisticated words. You're full of shit. Just what is it that makes Obama more unqualified than anyone else in this race? Is McCain more qualified because he was a prisoner who can't decide if torture is ok or not? He supports Bush for gods sake. Is Hillary qualified because of Bill? Mitt? Rudy? Is it because he lacks international experience? I for one very much prefer someone that does not have "Washington" roots and international experience. And at the risk of sounding both racist and sexist, I believe that right now, in the times we are in, we are better off having a man of color to deal with the leaders in the middle east than either a woman, who they culturally don't respect, or another war monger.I think you have a different agenda for your concerns, Jim.

Well that has its own kind of elegance. :-) But then I'm as elegant as any wharf rat who scrapes barnacles and doesn't own a pair of socks.

I agree actually, that as concerns or image in the world, Obama has the chance to show them all that we are not the racists the world thinks we are - and they do, as I'm sure you know.

The "experience" thing is a red herring anyway. Bush had plenty of experience as a Governor. Eisenhower, who I think was the last decent Republican president, had no background in government. Lincoln had no more than Obama and was elected primarily because of his eloquence.

For what it's worth, I often agree with Jim on everything else, but he seems to step into another persona when it comes to discussing Democrats. I don't understand.